Comparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones

dc.authorid0000-0003-2605-9935
dc.contributor.authorKartal, Ibrahim
dc.contributor.authorBaylan, Burhan
dc.contributor.authorÇakıcı, Mehmet Çağlar
dc.contributor.authorSari, Sercan
dc.contributor.authorSelmi, Volkan
dc.contributor.authorOzdemir, Harun
dc.contributor.authorYalcinkaya, Fatih
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-10T19:30:46Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjective: We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS), semirigid ureteroscopy (sr-URS), and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) to treat single 11-20 mm stones in the proximal ureter. Materials and methods: Patients treated at our clinic for 11-20 mm single stones in the proximal ureter who underwent f-URS, sr-URS or SWL as initial lithotripsy methods were compared in terms of their clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes. Results: A comparison among 201 patients who had undergone f-URS, 119 patients who had undergone sr-URS, and 162 patients who had undergone SWL showed no significant baseline differences in patients' demographic and stone characteristics. Stone-free rates on the 15th day and 3 rd month were higher with f-URS (89.6% and 97%, respectively) than with sr-URS (67.2% and 94.1%, respectively) and SWL (41.4% and 79.0%, respectively; all p < 0.001). Retreatment rates were significantly higher with SWL than with the other two modalities (p < 0.001); auxiliary procedure rates were significantly lower with f-URS than with the other two modalities (p < 0.001). Treatment-related complication rate at the end of the 3rd month was lower with f-URS than with SWL (p = 0.022). Furthermore, f-URS was more effective than sr-URS for treating impacted stones. Conclusions: We found that f-URS was highly successfulas an initial lithotripsy procedure for medium-sized proximal ureteral stones, and it helped achieve early stone-free outcomes with a lower need for retreatment and auxiliary procedures, lower complication rates, and higher effectiveness on the impacted stones compared with sr-URS and SWL.
dc.identifier.doi10.4081/aiua.2020.1.39
dc.identifier.endpage44
dc.identifier.issn1124-3562
dc.identifier.issn2282-4197
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pmid32255321
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage39
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.39
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/7723
dc.identifier.volume92
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000612201100009
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherPagepress Publ
dc.relation.ispartofArchivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectLithotripsy
dc.subjectUreter
dc.subjectUreteroscopy
dc.titleComparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Yükleniyor...
Küçük Resim
İsim:
Tam Metin / Full Text
Boyut:
695.56 KB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format